On 10/4/24 08:55, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
Hi Jerome,
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 18:23, Jerome Forissier jerome.forissier@linaro.org wrote:
When DSA_SANDBOX is not set, the sandbox tests fail as follows:
$ ./test/py/test.py --build-dir=$(pwd) -k bootdev_test_any [...] Scanning for bootflows with label '9' [...] Cannot find '9' (err=-19)
This is due to the device list containing two less entries than expected. Therefore, look for label '7' when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled.
The actual use case is NET_LWIP=y (to be introduced in later patches) which implies DSA_SANDBOX=n for the time being.
Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier jerome.forissier@linaro.org
test/boot/bootflow.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c index 6ad63afe90a..c440b8eb778 100644 --- a/test/boot/bootflow.c +++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c @@ -109,9 +109,12 @@ static int bootflow_cmd_label(struct unit_test_state *uts) * 8 [ ] OK mmc mmc2.bootdev * 9 [ + ] OK mmc mmc1.bootdev * a [ ] OK mmc mmc0.bootdev
** However with CONFIG_DSA_SANDBOX=n we have two less (dsa-test@0 and* dsa-test@1). */
ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 9", 0));ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '9'");Shouldn't this under and #ifdef, IS_ENABLED etc?
In theory yes, but we can avoid the conditional by using index 7 which is always valid, i.e., in all configurations we have at least 7 devices (even 8 actually).
ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 7", 0));ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '7'"); ut_assert_skip_to_line("(1 bootflow, 1 valid)"); ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 0", 0));-- 2.40.1